Posted on 09/28/2009 10:15:01 AM PDT by vikk
Attorney Orly Taitz, a national figure in the “birther” movement and lawyer for an Army captain who sought to stop her deployment to Iraq on arguments that President Barack Obama can’t legitimately hold office, has filed a motion to withdraw as the captain’s lawyer.
Taitz, who represents Capt. Connie Rhodes, filed her latest motion Saturday. It cites two court documents as reasons for withdrawing from the case — a Sept. 18 order from U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land threatening $10,000 in sanctions against Taitz and a letter purportedly signed by Connie Rhodes, which asks for Taitz to be removed as her attorney.
“In order to defend herself, the undersigned counsel will have to contest and potentially appeal any sanctions order in her own name alone, separately from the plaintiff, by offering and divulging what would normally constitute inadmissible and privileged attorney-client communications,” Taitz states. “The undersigned attorney will also offer evidence and call witnesses whose testimony will be adverse to her (former) client’s most recently stated position in this case.”
It appears, however, that Taitz didn’t sign her motion. Court records filed Monday state that the motion must be filed again because Taitz didn’t sign it.
Exactly. If the trolls are lost on the futility of talking to "crazy people," they should just go hang out on Democrat Underground.
Those cats are still thinking Obama won't raise taxes on those that make less than $250K and that he will keep his other campaign promises. What lunacy that is - Bwahahaha!
The people and the states.
The national parties, secretaries of state, members of congress, and the courts if asked.
The problenm is that in Cal where they have taken candidates off the ballot because their birth certificates showed they were too young, the secretary of state has stopped checking qualifications and taking the word of the parties that their candidate is qualified. This system provides an easy opportunity for fraud, as we may be experiencing now.
I shall sign off by using your handle.
Exactly! Nufsed! ;-)
Moonbat or plant
Since the definition of natural born may have to go to court, that's where it will be decided. Can't believe the founders would consider the son of a British citizen, to be a natural born US citizen and want him to be president.
Also, the opening of his records should show his birthplace. We deserve to view the "best evidence" and not have to take the word of the person who may be comitting the fraud.
Why should the “tweeted and blogged” argument apply only in Bummer’s favor?
You just produced your name...
If the Constitution does not specify, then it falls to the people and the states.
Hit Dog Hollers.
You're no exception.
Nonsense. Many states require their Secretary of State to verify candidate eligibility.
Yes. We had an election. The verdict of the people and the states was that Obama won.
Alternatively, he could be impeached and removed. But again, that's a political choice and there isn't much chance of that happening.
The issue that arises is one of fraud.
That would be one area for sure. Now you can’t just go holler fraud but rather you need some reliable evidence that fraud has been committed, correct? I guess that would be were we are today in trying to determine/find some reliable evidence. I know we have a lot of assertions but what reliablity do they have? I think that is one problem the courts are having. JMO and I’m not a legal expert by any imagination.
That does it for me. I think we should stop seeking the truth about our public officials.
Nobody said that. Seek it. But don't go to court expecting action until you actually find it.
Has nothing to do with winning or losing. It has to do with eligibility.
The primary case is that we have a constitutional requirement and it is clear from the failure of the parties, secretaries of state, congress and courts to do their duty to uphold the constitution that the issue needs to be addressed to ensure that the person in office actually meets the qualification.
Reason 3 is because I said so and I'm the dad. LOL!
My 178 answers your point. The court must deal with the issue because every one else failed to uphold the constitution. What more do you want?
What about it? You said it was up to the people and the states. The election is where the people and the states express themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.